Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Recommended Posts

These last few years have really pressed home the reality that if the officials given responsibility to enforce our laws choose not to, those laws are impotent. Now we have to wait to see whether or not the other shoe -- the voting public's responsibility to hold those officials to account -- actually drops. If not, I think we Canucks will have to make room for Old Man and many other Yankee expats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I feel this needs to be shared.  

I refuse to accept that this "era we're in" is a new normal or acceptable in any way. 

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

These last few years have really pressed home the reality that if the officials given responsibility to enforce our laws choose not to, those laws are impotent. Now we have to wait to see whether or not the other shoe -- the voting public's responsibility to hold those officials to account -- actually drops. If not, I think we Canucks will have to make room for Old Man and many other Yankee expats.

 

To be blunt.  Trump and the US has a track record of taking what they want, and Canada has lots of cool land and fresh water. 

 

Canada isn't far enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

And to be equally blunt. If Trump stays in power, you folks will have more than enough conflict within your own borders to occupy you, without looking for it with us.

 

Besides, if we have to we'll just burn Washington DC again. :winkgrin:

 

Truth. A second term for Trump guarantees unrest on a scale that will make what we're seeing currently feel like a lovely stroll in the park.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a relevant historical observation, the road to the first American Civil War was about 40 years long, starting with the Missouri Compromise in 1820.  I don't know what the first step on our current road was, but it's safe to say we've been on it at least half that long.  Arguably it started during the first Bush administration.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

And to be equally blunt. If Trump stays in power, you folks will have more than enough conflict within your own borders to occupy you, without looking for it with us.

 

 

lol.  I lived in Canada far more than I have in the US, so I don't count as 'you folks'.  I hope you are right, because it's looking like my parents are going to have to flee the country.

 

1 hour ago, megaplayboy said:

As a relevant historical observation, the road to the first American Civil War was about 40 years long, starting with the Missouri Compromise in 1820.  I don't know what the first step on our current road was, but it's safe to say we've been on it at least half that long.  Arguably it started during the first Bush administration.  

 

I'm inclined to agree.  😕  What we are seeing here is maximum acceleration, however.  People here are eagerly talking about it, like it's going to be some damn party.

 

Literally been hearing talk like that for over a decade.  "Only good lib is a dead lib".  And people wonder why we dislike Trump so much?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For my own use, I'm going to try to keep a running tally of Republican senators and whether they'll support the Senate having hearings and voting on a Trump Supreme Court nomination before the next term. Or not. 

 

Support:

 

Martha McSally (AZ)

Cory Gardner (CO)

Rick Scott (FL)

Joni Ernst (IA)

Kelly Loeffler (GA)

David Perdue (GA)

Chuck Grassley (IA) - said no in July when Ginsburg was sick. Refused to answer on Saturday. Said yes on Tuesday.

McConnell (KY)

Roy Blunt (MO)

Steve Daines (MT)

Thom Tillis (NC)

Kevin Kramer (ND)

Rob Portman (OH)

Lindsey Graham (SC)

John Thune (SD)

Lamar Alexander (TN)

Ted Cruz (TX)

Romney (UT)

 

 

Waffling:

 

Susan Collins (ME) - her official word Saturday was no. Her official word Tuesday was no vote before the election. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/517622-collins-says-she-will-vote-no-on-supreme-court-nominee-before-election

 

Against:

 

Lisa Murkowski (AK) - said no on Friday after Ginsburg passed and again no again on Sunday

 

 

There's a total of six Republican Senators running for re-election, including Collins and Lindsey Graham, who are at risk of not winning. I'd be surprised if any of them were stupid/bold enough to agree to hearings and a vote on a Supreme Court justice before election day. Agreeing to that would certainly energize their base. But it would probably enrage independents and Democrats to the point that they'd turn out in droves for the express purpose of kicking out the Republican hypocrites.

 

edit:

 

It appears I was wrong and that most Senators who are in trouble in November have stepped forward to ask for an immediate confirmation.

 

With Romney coming in on the pro-vote side on 9-22-20, it seems unlikely the Democrats have any avenue for stopping a Trump nominee from being confirmed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a state-by-state listing of the earliest you can vote in each state. Some states have already started voting so if you're planning on voting at all, you might as well vote soon to avoid the rush.

 

However, don't follow the president's advice of "vote early, vote often" (which is a crime). 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/515162-heres-the-earliest-you-can-vote-in-each-state

 

If any of you aren't sure about the rules of your state and can't find the details you need in order to vote (whether in person on election day, early, by mail, or absentee), feel free to message me.

 

I'm willing to up the rules, explain them, and give you a link to your state's website.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Old Man said:


Unenforceable. 

 

It's unenforceable, as such, in the time frame before the election.

 

But anyone in the USPS who doesn't comply with the court order could be held in contempt and imprisoned. That goes from the top officials in the USPS down to people who run individual post offices.

 

I could see top USPS officials thinking that Trump would go out of his way to protect them. I'm not sure that the person running the Tolleston Post Office at 2407 W 11th Ave in Gary, Indiana would be equally confident in presidential protection.

 

Also the USPS and perhaps USPS officials themselves could face fines for contempt. Probably all paid out of the USPS budget but still.

 

It's a nice gesture by the judge to issue the ruling and probably the maximum he could have done. If he's dedicated enough to try to make the lives of the USPS officials a living hell, he could probably do that over the next few months. Some federal employees might not want a federal contempt charge on their record for the rest of their careers.

 

The ruling might persuade a lot of individual post offices to defy their superiors, roll back the changes to policies, and hook up any mail sorting equipment which hasn't already been removed from the property and trashed. We know that the changes haven't been popular among postal service employees and have made their lives much more difficult, so they'd probably be happy to comply on a non-management level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

 

Truth. A second term for Trump guarantees unrest on a scale that will make what we're seeing currently feel like a lovely stroll in the park.

 

 

Especially considering that Barr was recently urging Federal prosecutors to charge any demonstrators after a hypothetical Trump reelection with attempting to overthrow the government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't bubble up to the level of national news, but the people of Hawaii are getting obliterated by fines.

 

The HPD issued 5,000 coronavirus violation tickets (misdemeanor, $5,000 fine max, 1 year in jail max) in a SINGLE weekend.  HPD is currently set to make $25,000,000 per week on these tickets.

 

Who needs tourists for tax revenue?  Just destroy the locals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ScottishFox said:

It won't bubble up to the level of national news, but the people of Hawaii are getting obliterated by fines.

 

The HPD issued 5,000 coronavirus violation tickets (misdemeanor, $5,000 fine max, 1 year in jail max) in a SINGLE weekend.  HPD is currently set to make $25,000,000 per week on these tickets.

 

Who needs tourists for tax revenue?  Just destroy the locals.

 

The locals were made aware of the law and apparently chose to defy it.

 

Do you have any evidence to suggest that any of those tickets were trumped up charges rather than actual violations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, archer said:

 

Do you have any evidence to suggest that any of those tickets were trumped up charges rather than actual violations?

 

They're actual violations.  People ignoring restrictions are why there was a serious spike in cases over the past two months.  As it is nurses had to be flown in from the mainland to handle the influx of covid patients, and there was a real risk that ICU beds would run out.  The enforcement campaign is the only reason the spread started to slow down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Old Man said:

 

They're actual violations.  People ignoring restrictions are why there was a serious spike in cases over the past two months.  As it is nurses had to be flown in from the mainland to handle the influx of covid patients, and there was a real risk that ICU beds would run out.  The enforcement campaign is the only reason the spread started to slow down.

 

Oh, I don't doubt it from what I've read.

 

I was just wondering if what he'd read suggested something different was happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, archer said:

 

They made the same arguments against seatbelts and against electronic turn signals built into the car that you had to pay for (rather than being an option like floor mats).

 

I know.  And bikers still routinely ignore helmet laws.  They loved to wear masks up until it became an affront to mah freedumb though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Man said:

 

They're actual violations.  People ignoring restrictions are why there was a serious spike in cases over the past two months.  As it is nurses had to be flown in from the mainland to handle the influx of covid patients, and there was a real risk that ICU beds would run out.  The enforcement campaign is the only reason the spread started to slow down.

 

Daily data shows this.  Mid July and before...30 and under per day average.  End of July it started to skyrocket;  mid-August through early September, over 200 a day, and usually WELL over 200 a day at that point.  

The potential failure to get a nomination through is going to depend on whether the Republicans now feel free enough to say No.  That's possible;  Trump's done enough that the lockstep is breaking down.  LIndsay Graham is never going to take an insult to the military sitting down.  But the election status...that cuts both ways.  We know there's the large component of supporters who will never drift from Trump, almost no matter what.  Any Republican Senator who doesn't help push an SC nominee through before the chance to do so evaporates, is going to face serious backlash from this group.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, megaplayboy said:

As a relevant historical observation, the road to the first American Civil War was about 40 years long, starting with the Missouri Compromise in 1820.  I don't know what the first step on our current road was, but it's safe to say we've been on it at least half that long.  Arguably it started during the first Bush administration.  

 

I would argue the first step on the current road started even earlier, with Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker of the House from 1995-99. It was Gingrich who crafted the strategy of casting Democrats as the enemy, of demonizing them as opponents. Arguably that strategy helped GWB win the White House. But it tolled the death-knell for bipartisan compromise. The political objective of both parties became to win power, at any cost, and then force through an undiluted agenda as far as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, archer said:

 

They made the same arguments against seatbelts and against electronic turn signals built into the car that you had to pay for (rather than being an option like floor mats).

 

If Trump hadn't politicized the wearing of protective masks, the pinheads would never have gotten so worked up about it. In fact if their Dear Leader had told them at the start to wear them, we wouldn't hear a peep about it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I would argue the first step on the current road started even earlier, with Newt Gingrich's tenure as Speaker of the House from 1995-99. It was Gingrich who crafted the strategy of casting Democrats as the enemy, of demonizing them as opponents. Arguably that strategy helped GWB win the White House. But it tolled the death-knell for bipartisan compromise. The political objective of both parties became to win power, at any cost, and then force through an undiluted agenda as far as possible.

 

What killed bipartisan compromise was the end of congressional earmarks.

 

Formerly, congressmen were allowed to designate money to go to specific projects which were near and dear to their hearts. The way that deals were cut between the two political parties was that money, which was going to be spent anyway, was assigned to specific projects in exchange for a particular legislator's vote on a bill.

 

That system did cause problems.

 

A congressman were allowed to add those earmarks to legislation without his identity being known. So if a legislator wanted to be completely irresponsible with money, he could designate money be spent on useless projects, usually within his district and for the benefit of a friend or campaign contributor. And it would never be discovered who was at fault because it could have been any of them who added that earmark to the legislation.

 

Worse, former staffers of congressmen came forward and revealed that it was common practice to not bother a legislator with details of what was going on and that staffers would write and add earmarks to bills. 

 

It was much easier to add an earmark than it was to remove it. And many times earmarks were added to bills almost literally at the last possible moment, long after any other legislator or staffer would have read the bill. So bills were being voted on without the congressmen in either party knowing everything which was in the legislation.

 

They could have fixed the problem by forcing specific congressmen to take credit for the earmarks they put in legislation (so the voters could hold them responsible for their actions) and by not allowing earmarks to be added at the last moment (so each legislator could know what he was voting for and couldn't claim that he had no idea what had been added to the bill at the last moment).

 

Instead Congress fixed the earmark problem by banning all earmarks.

 

Formerly, bipartisan legislation could be passed because the last votes needed could be gotten by allowing individual legislators on each side to earmark something. Congressmen who were concerned about US ground troops dying could earmark part of the Air Force budget to saving the A-10 Warthog aircraft, which the Air Force hates because the Warthog's mission is to fly low level missions to support ground troops (while the Air Force institutionally loves fighter planes rather than bombers or ground support aircraft). Another congressman might want highways fixed in some part of his state and earmark federal highway funds for that. But earmarks would be allowed on both sides in order to get enough votes to put legislation across the finish line.

 

With no earmarks, there's no way to get legislators from different parties to work together unless the legislators from both parties genuinely like all the parts of the proposed bill. So partisan bills repeatedly get passed out of the House then die in the Senate because the bills aren't bipartisan.

 

House party leaders can put pressure on their own members in order to get them to back particular bills. But one side has no lever to use to gain cooperation from the other party so that a bill gets passed with apparent widespread support from both parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, archer said:

For my own use, I'm going to try to keep a running tally of Republican senators and whether they'll support the Senate having hearings and voting on a Trump Supreme Court nomination before the next term. Or not. 

 

Support:

 

Martha McSally (AZ)

Rick Scott (FL)

Joni Ernst (IA)

McConnell (KY)

Kevin Kramer (ND)

Lindsey Graham (SC)

John Thune (SD)

Ted Cruz (TX)

 

 

Against:

 

Lisa Murkowski (AK) - that's what she said earlier this year, no official word since Ginsburg's passing.

Susan Collins (ME) - her official word since Ginsburg's passing.

 

There's a total of six Republican Senators running for re-election, including Collins and Lindsey Graham, who are at risk of not winning. I'd be surprised if any of them were stupid/bold enough to agree to hearings and a vote on a Supreme Court justice before election day. Agreeing to that would certainly energize their base. But it would probably enrage independents and Democrats to the point that they'd turn out in drove for the express purpose of kicking out the Republican hypocrites.

 

As a more or less independent, they are too varied to really predict on this.

 

Plus the Scalia thing happened 4 years ago, which is at least 2 years longer than  the threshold of most voter political memories.

6 hours ago, Old Man said:

spacer.png

In my area, you turn on the full beams to blind all the other drivers.....apparently.

 

Well, maybe not high beams, so much as those halogen beams that cut through others retinas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...